3 ms·
> "We wanted to establish a scientific record on the topic of secret atmospheric spraying programs for the benefit of those in the public who haven't made up th
by andrewstuart2 10y ago
> "We wanted to establish a scientific record on the topic of secret atmospheric spraying programs for the benefit of those in the public who haven't made up their minds," said Steven Davis of UC Irvine. "The experts we surveyed resoundingly rejected contrail photographs and test results as evidence of a large-scale atmospheric conspiracy."
Not that I disagree with their expert opinions, but this is not a scientific record. This is not a hypothesis with reproducible experiments that prove or disprove the hypothesis. This is the aggregate opinion of many highly-educated people.
- triplesec 10y agoTo be fair to them, a scientific record is in many ways just the aggregate of the agreements of the practitioners of [insert experimental / theoretical discipline here] who agree that a particular set of data and theories seem to be well-formed. So, scientific record is an aggregate opinion, backed by data. Sometimes the data are experiments, but these experiments require peer validation, or else any old crackpot wcould have their theories accepted. Other times the scientific consensus is less-well-backed by experiement (String theory anyone?) sometimes correctly, sometimes not. This is how induction works!